Bank crypto spreads: why high fees are a temporary phenomenon
The launch of cryptocurrency banking operations in Russia will inevitably lead to high spreads at the initial stage. However, players are unlikely to sustain markups of 5–7% or higher in a competitive market. The key factor here is not the greed of credit institutions, but the objective cost of building new infrastructure.
My analysis shows: the final price for the client will be determined not so much by the bank's desire to profit, but by the real costs of liquidity, compliance, and risk hedging. The client's willingness to overpay for a regulated framework and the difference from the cost of familiar fiat transfers will also play a role.
Why spreads will be high at first
At the outset, banks will have to factor in significant expenses: building treasury reserves, implementing transaction monitoring systems, legal support, and the technological base. In certain products, the markup could reach several basis points, which will be noticeable for retail clients.
However, I consider levels such as 5–7% unsustainable. As soon as several banks and other regulated participants enter the market, margins will begin to compress fairly quickly. The market, not the regulator, will shape the final spread. It will be composed of the global price of the crypto asset, the cost of liquidity, and the infrastructure of a specific bank.
The Central Bank, it seems, will focus on access rules and the composition of participants, rather than administering quotes. This means that markups may vary significantly across different banks—until competition levels the playing field.
Who will win the battle for the client
Victory in this race will go to those with larger marketing budgets and a greater willingness to take risks to dominate the new economy. This is not only about qualified investors.
The mass client is currently not ready to overpay for the mere word "bank." The stress level of the retail audience has remained high since 2022: the Russian user is willing to accept many scenarios to meet their needs, but not an unjustifiably high cost of service.
The picture is completely different for affluent clients. Large capital continues to move between countries, and with an average transaction of 3–5 million rubles, a person is willing to pay for speed, transparency, and the absence of problems. The question of whether such a client will prefer their own accountant or a Russian bank—I consider rhetorical.
My summary: the market for banking cryptocurrency in Russia will develop along the model of the currency market, not a tariff-based product. High spreads are the price of entry, but long-term profitability will be determined by the efficiency of liquidity and the quality of service, not administrative barriers.